Posted: 12th Jul, 2011 By: MarkJ


The UK governments
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is almost ready to publish Ofcom's review into the
viability of website blocking measures, which was proposed as part of the controversial anti-piracy
Digital Economy Act (DEA). The review was launched in February 2011 (
here) after fears were raised that it would be
technically unworkable and could result in
censorship of legitimate websites (e.g. those that only link incidentally to unlawfully distributed material [Google, Facebook, YouTube etc.]).
The Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said in February 2011:
"I have no problem with the principle of blocking access to websites used exclusively for facilitating illegal downloading of content. But it is not clear whether the site blocking provisions in the Act could work in practice so I have asked Ofcom to address this question. Before we consider introducing site-blocking we need to know whether these measures are possible."
ISPreview.co.uk recently learnt that the review itself was
submitted to the Secretary of State several weeks ago. The UK Communications Minister,
Ed Vaizey, offered some further details on this during last week's AGM at the British Phonographic Industry (BPI - music trade body).
The UK Comms Minister, Ed Vaizey, told the BPI (6th July):
"The road ahead is now clearer, assuming that the continuing efforts of BT and Talk Talk come to nought. I understand your concern that this happens as fast as possible, with minimal costs, and we do intend to make clear our intentions about the Act before too long.
If it seems this has been a slow process there has been a genuine reason for it. We want to get the road ahead absolutely clear so when the Act is implemented it goes as smoothly as possible.
One thing that I would say to this audience is that in order to ensure that the initial obligations are up and running as soon as possible we need Ofcom to have all the information they need – and that includes rights holder budgets. I know that this may a sensitive point, but the less reason for delay, on all sides, the better.
The initial obligations are designed to reduce unlawful peer-to-peer file-sharing, but this is not the only threat, which is why we set up the working group on site-blocking to which the BPI has actively contributed. That has done some promising work.
And we will publish Ofcom’s report into the workability of sections 17 and 18 of the DEA shortly, and our reaction to it."
Meanwhile Rights Holders and UK broadband ISPs are still attempting to reach an agreement over the establishment of a new
Voluntary Code of Practice for blocking any website that is deemed to "
facilitate"
internet copyright infringement (
here). Separately BT is also
fighting a court battle with the MPA, which aims to force ISPs into blocking related sites (
here); a decision on that is expected this week.
It's understood that the DEA's original website blocking measures would also
need secondary legislation before they could be introduced, which makes Ofcom's review especially critical. However, a separate report on
OUT-LAW yesterday noted that the government is considering Ofcom's report but has not yet decided when to publish it.
The terms of reference for Ofcom's original assessment are:
◦ Is it possible for access to the site to be blocked by internet service providers?
◦ How robust would such a block be – in other words would it have the intended effect, and how easy would it be to circumvent for most site operators?
◦ What measures might be adopted by internet service providers to prevent such circumvention?
◦ How granular can blocking be – i.e. can specific parts of the site be blocked, how precise can this be, and how effective?
◦ How effective are sections 17 and 18 of the Act in providing for an appropriate method of generating lists of sites to be blocked?
◦ If possible, identify either a potential range of costs for ISP blocking solutions or the main drivers of those costs.
UPDATE 9:37amIn related news, Ofcom informs ISPreview.co.uk that they will
not launch a separate consultation on the appeals and enforcement process of their
Draft Code of Practice for tackling internet copyright infringement by customers of UK broadband ISPs (
here).
The second consultation was originally proposed for July 2010 but never surfaced. Ofcom now claims that this second consultation is not needed because the original draft contained enough detail. Some consumer rights groups would probably disagree.
Meanwhile the Code itself is still awaiting government approval before it can be published, which is somewhat dependent upon the state of various legal challenges and other on-going disputes (e.g. the above article). It must then be submitted to the European Commission (EC) for consideration, after which the UK Parliament is widely expected to rubber stamp it.